scout48:cubic_spleen: "Since that dude's killin' folk, it won't make no difference if I take out a couple myself when I shoot back at him."

/this is what NRA members really think

Gee Whiz mister, didn't know you could read my mind like that. I always thought the NRA encouraged people to own guns AND learn how to use them safely. I always thought that they provided the template many states use for required CCW training. I always thought they helped fund programs to educate young shooters so they could become responsible gun owners. So glad someone who knows so much about it could educate me.

/I have a CCW permit. I have completed a few training courses educating me on laws and refreshing me on safe firearms practices. I have donated to and attended NRA sponsored training and shooting events and attended others that used their templates for course work. I not only believe in gun ownership, but in responsible gun ownership. Not all members of the NRA may feel that way, but the organization sure does. It feels that ignorant gun owners provide ammo for anti-gun groups and legislation.

Horse shiat.

If the NRA was REALLY concerned with responsible gun ownership, they would be spending more time publicly berating irresponsible gun owners, and less time convincing cowards that the Muslin-in-chief is gunna git theyer guhns. They would call out the paranoid crazies as the REAL threat to the right to bear arms.

But they will never do that. "Responsible gun ownership" is an empty phrase the NRA uses to try to convince slightly less bloodthirsty gun owners to send them money.

The NRA firmly believes that it is better that 10,000 psychos have free access to assault weapons, than that a single law-abiding citizen have to wait ten days before making a legal purchase.

And until they spend as much time and money publicly advocating responsible gun use as they do fanning the flames of bigotry and paranoia, they deserve to be treated as a hate group.

HotWingConspiracy:Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.

Hellfire missiles and AC-130 gunships can be a pesky nuisance.And smart bombs.

But most of all would the the anti-insurgency doctrine that the entire military has been developing for the past 12 years. Those trailer park neighbors will be flipping like pancakes once a few special forces operators offer them a fist-full of gold coins to sing like a bird. [See also: Robin Sage exercises. Managing exactly this scenario is how the special forces guys qualify to wear their patches.]

uttertosh:Bit'O'Gristle: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG

you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

/yes, because just cowering in your seat hoping not to get riddled by gunfire is MUCH better than being able to defend yourself and others.

Tawnos:Wolf_Cub: Holmes was wearing Body Armor. The best you would have done is break a rib or two and slowed him down.

No, he wasn't. He was wearing a Initial reports were wrong.

Even if he were, my friends who have been shot in body armor say it's not something where "oh, just a broken rib". They say, generally, one round takes you out of the fight for a minute or more while the wind is knocked out of you and you're bent over in pain. More than that and you're well out of it.

Shorter uttertosh: I'm a gigantic baby who can't defend himself, therefore nobody should be able to engage in self-defense and we should keep wagging our fingers at murderers in the hope they see the error of their ways.

chandler_vt:uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG

you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

HotIgneous Intruder:spacelord321: This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.

And in every case, the room was full of wannabe Rambos who could have completely altered the outcomes except that their hands were tied by strict local gun laws that would have criminalized them for stopping a criminal in the act of a crime.IT'S THE LAWS THAT ARE THE ENEMY!SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, herpa-DERPA, DERP.

I'm astounded by the "OMG DONT DEFEND YOURSELF OR YOUR FAMILY " crowd here. Looks like most of you would just cuddle up under the seats and pray someone else gets shot. Get some farking balls. Jesus. And yes, i have years of gun training, am a expert at shooting my guns, and no, it wouldnt be easy in that situation, but fark, at least you could try to defend yourself, not just lay there and get gunned down with no way to defend yourself.

yes, this was in the day, but the police had a man point a gun at them, and they were armed and had a chance to defend themselves. Effectively btw,....why should i get no way to defend myself and my family and just the police should? You can't depend on the police to defend you, they show up AFTER an incident when it's all said and done.

Fark It:Have you been reading Huffington Post or any Fark thread about Aurora, CO? The antis aren't just pressing for a renewed AWB, they want registration, confiscation, etc.

Never mind that his AR jammed and that he switched to his shotgun. We need to ban babby-killing assault weapons with extended clip magazines!

Of course there will always be people who 'want to take your guns'. The gun nuts and the NRA run around like their hair is on fire screaming about the gubmmit takin my guns!1!OMG!!

Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things. None

HotIgneous Intruder:HotWingConspiracy: Without a doubt, I just don't see it going well for any potential Johnny Rebs in our midst.

Hellfire missiles and AC-130 gunships can be a pesky nuisance.And smart bombs.

But most of all would the the anti-insurgency doctrine that the entire military has been developing for the past 12 years. Those trailer park neighbors will be flipping like pancakes once a few special forces operators offer them a fist-full of gold coins to sing like a bird. [See also: Robin Sage exercises. Managing exactly this scenario is how the special forces guys qualify to wear their patches.]

And those who earned their patches who are retired? What happens when a smart bomb takes out one of their family members or friends through collateral damage?

You just created more insurgents.....who happen to be trained.

Isn;t that part of the argument in reagrds to the war on terror? We keep creating more terrorists based on our actions.... Why does that not hold true in an American insurgency?

Didn't the HSA claim the returning troops are a danger to the republic not so long ago?

HazMatt:spacelord321: This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.

The dark and tear gas are the least of it. It's a _mass_ shooting. The worst part about the situation is a hundred panicked homo sapiens bouncing around. It could be 72 degrees and sunny and you'd still be farked.

andersoncouncil42:Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things. None

spacelord321:HazMatt: spacelord321: This just in... every mass shooting in US history occured in a dark, tear gas filled room, apperantly.

The dark and tear gas are the least of it. It's a _mass_ shooting. The worst part about the situation is a hundred panicked homo sapiens bouncing around. It could be 72 degrees and sunny and you'd still be farked.

Giltric:PsyLord: fonebone77: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

I guess you can go with that logic, but every round of yours found lodged in someones body nets you a negligent homicide/attempted homicide charge. Even very highly trained cops accuracy is awful from more than a few feet away in comparatively clear conditions. Im not anti gun. I do have a CCW license. I probably would not have opened fire on this guy unless he was right next to me and I felt I had no choice. Gun ownership/responsibility extends to every round you fire and everything they strike.

The obligatory response from the gun nuts would be that any CCW licensed person would be a far better shot than your local police officer since they would've spent hundreds of hours per month at the range compared to cops who don't have the time since they are patrolling the streets.

Cops have to prove themselves once a year....and from what I hear they are given an unlimited amount of time and ammo to prove themself qualified.

On average we go through 1000 rounds a month shooting paper....recreationally.

On a clear range. With no one shooting back. With no other potential backstops running around screaming their heads off. If you want to discount cops, thats fine, well move on to the military. The active guys in combat roles do fire thousands of rounds per year in practice. They still rarely hit their targets in combat situations. Even the special ops forces main strategy in a gun fight is to put as many rounds down field as possible because most of them miss. Im not saying there arent dead shots out there that can drop a target on a quick draw at 25 yards on the range all day. Im saying the likely consequences for missing in a high pressure situation with large crowds are more dead people, and those dead people are on your conscience, and more importantly will be on your criminal record.

The sucky truth is, that there isnt much that can be done overall to prevent people from killing other people, and sometimes a lot of them at once. We are fortunate enough that its a pretty rare individual who is willing to go all out and do these kinds of things.

Im not advocating for more gun control by any means. This guy could just as easily have brought the home made bombs he made and tossed em into the crowd causing even more damage. Im saying I dont believe less gun control would have made any positive difference in this situation.

spacelord321:SuperNinjaToad: the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...

WTF am I reading? I don't even...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

cuzsis:chandler_vt: uttertosh: Bit'O'Gristle: I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

ITG

you'd have shiat your panties, choked on tear gas, got shot dead.

This. And Bit'O'Gristle: What if you are first one to get shot? So you will have no time to react. But wishful thinking is fun and you are a hero in your mind.

Then you were shot first and can't do anything.

But the odds of you getting shot first are 1/100 (Or whatever the seating capacity of the theater was).

Nobody is saying that you're guaranteed to live if you attack this guy back, death is still very likely. Only that it's generally preferable than sitting around waiting to be shot, where death is almost certain.

/also if someone had shot back he might have come to his senses in a hurry and left mid-attack. (Happens frequently enough with violent criminals)

W/o training and experience, some panic and run. Most just collapse.Still, he would have most likely gone thru his ordinance before being engaged.

After the last presidential election, everyone was so afraid that Obama was "GONNA'TAKE AR GUNS!!" the nutjobs stocked up on guns and ammo to the point that finding anything but the crappiest guns at the local GunMart was impossible.

andersoncouncil42:Common sense measures like AWB (who the fark needs an automatic weapon to shoot targets and game?) and jumbo sized magazines are common sense. I'm sorry, but there is no rational argument against those two things.

thetubameister:This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?Did the police come? Did you call them?If not, why not?

Bit'O'Gristle:I'm not surprised. I wish someone if not someones in that theater were carrying that night. The chances of innocent people getting shot in the crossfire would have been more than offset by the chances of a trained (range time) law abiding citizen throwing a few in the X ring of this douche's chest. Innocent people were dying anyway, and if i had been at that place at that time, i would have chosen to be able not only to defend myself and my family, but the other innocents there too. Better chance having a gun you can use than just cowering back in fear and waiting to get shot like a dog.

Sorry, most gun owners are law abiding citizens, and that theater is a gun free zone. Therefor, out of respect for the law, most gun owning citizens would not have their guns there.

thetubameister:spacelord321: SuperNinjaToad: the BIGGEST problem with most guns owners is they tend to think of themselves as uber rational, super cool, calm rational people who will only use it in the most extreme of danger and that they are also super sharpshooters.Problem is most aren't sharpshooters and they are just as susceptible to stress, emotional distress, anger and irrationality than anyone else!That's what makes gun owners so dangerous.

I would rather face a thug with an illegal gun who is trying to rob me than a 'law abiding' citizen with legally purchased AR-15s who just got dumped by his wife, lost his job because it got shipped to China, got everything taken away from him and was just told by his kids that they hate him and is going to call the new guy 'dad' instead of him...........and I just accidently cut him off in traffic .....and I look Asian...

WTF am I reading? I don't even...

This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

So what happened after that? Call the cops on him since he was brandishing his weapon?

jso2897:This incident is a terrible example to base arguments on. It is highly unlikely that either restrictive gun laws or armed citizens could have prevented this - and it's a vanishingly rare event - never a good basis for policy-making.

The second amendment was not written simply for protection against robbers.It's also to protect yourself against the government.With the defense spending our government has, I think you absolutely need much more serious firepower, including rockets and missiles if need be.

MythDragon:Gun Nuts:-Love Guns-Knows all about guns.-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.

Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.Feels naked when not strapped.Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

Tawnos:You can prop open a door while it's "closed" with a credit card or a wad of paper. Even so, I saw research a few years ago (I believe wired commented on it, but I'd have to go searching) that suggests alarms shouldn't be put on emergency exit doors, as it discourages their use during a real emergency. More than that, exit routes should be the ones people are used to using, not a "special" route.

This does make me wonder if there's any camera footage of that exit door, though - not for any sort of life-saving security purposes but just for regular old money purposes, you'd think the theater might worry about people opening that door to let non-paying friends in to see movies for free. One guy buys a ticket, lets two guys in... particularly considering how these days everyone knows there's around 20 minutes of commercials running with the lights off before the actual show starts, so you can wait to let your friends in in the dark, when most people are watching the screen and the sound is already turned way up.

Ned Stark:But to explicitly answer your question, no I don't think people with diagnosed mental disorders should be able to purchase firearms but you shouldn't have to undergo screening specifically to purchase them.

Either way, it seems this was this guy's first crime. As far as I know a few people close to him have now said (with hindsight!) that he perhaps seemed a bit off, but of course out of 1341987 people who seem "a bit off" the vast majority will never do anything - this is pure hindsight talking.

As for the concealed carry argument that "he maybe wouldn't go to the theater if he thought people would be packing" - he seemed to be prepared for at least some potential resistance, not to mention that odds are he's nutty as a loon.

Lawnchair:ph0rk: Or: been forced to leave your guns in the car (as a law-abiding gun owner) because the theater didn't want any guns inside.

Seriously? Do you know any regularly concealed-carriers? Do you seriously think there weren't at least 4-5 concealed guns in the theater (sign or no sign)?

Most CC permit holders are pretty scrupulous when it comes to following the law, so NO.In the event, nobody used a weapon against the red haired lunatic.Mostly because he achieved perfect tactical surprise.All the CC permit holders were rubbing themselves down there to the gun porn on the movie screen.

NightOwl2255:MythDragon: Gun Nuts:-Love Guns-Knows all about guns.-Can tell you how guns work, how to safety use them, how to clean them and how to store them properly-Have lots of experience with guns. Shoots them frequently-Raised with guns. Their paw had a gun, and he took them out to shoot it to show them how to correctly use it.Believes Obama is coming to get his guns.Feels naked when not strapped.Knows that guns are the answer for all of society's ills.Knows that anyone that does not daily carry is a cowering pussy.

soup:Carousel Beast: soup: Carousel Beast: IQof20: So nobody can tell you that you're so crazy that you cannot have a gun vote? Which is the same logic of why the gentleman in question wasn't being treated within a facility despite concerns for his mental well-being. Which allowed his gentleman to go and buy several guns influence and election aaaand...

That a person can't even bring up the point that perhaps...just...perhaps...there are certain times when certain people should not be carrying a weapon voting just makes all of this stupid. If you can't at least come up with one situation where a person should yield their right to carry vote then I don't believe your opinion is relevant beyond the number of bullets ballots you have in your chamber.

And *THAT* unfortunately is the ultimate fear of anyone even tentatively raising their hand vs. anything the NRA is feeding that very vocal minority.

How does your post look now? You can substitute any other right - speech, assembly, etc, and see why your argument is a failure.

Voting cannot be used to go on a killing spree by a crazy person.

If you want to talk about "bearing arms" as being your right, then please stick to muskets, bows, arrows, and swords. Thanks.

No, voting can do a hell of a lot worse than a shooting spree. I'd certainly be in favor of curtailing your voting rights based on the drooling stupidity of your reply.

And, of course, "arms", being a broad term refering to weapons in general, should only be construed in the manner that you want it to, right?

The founding fathers clearly used the term "arms", as the standard of the day that the average private citizen owned equivalent arms to the average soldier. This continued pretty much up until korea or viet nam when soldiers were issued fully automatic weapons.

But yes, let's not stop that from getting our panties in a twist over those scary guns because no one was ever killed with anything else...

HotIgneous Intruder:thetubameister: This happened to me. Dipshiat tailgating idiot got mad when I flashed my brake lights, and eventually put on my hazards and slowed to a craw to get him to go around me. This CCW license holder got out of his car at the next light with his gun pulled. So, yeah, I'd like to discourage that piece of shiat from legally owning a gun.

Was he wearing his CC permit pinned to his sleeve, as required by local law and custom?Did the police come? Did you call them?If not, why not?

I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

itazurakko:Either way, it seems this was this guy's first crime. As far as I know a few people close to him have now said (with hindsight!) that he perhaps seemed a bit off, but of course out of 1341987 people who seem "a bit off" the vast majority will never do anything - this is pure hindsight talking.

As for the concealed carry argument that "he maybe wouldn't go to the theater if he thought people would be packing" - he seemed to be prepared for at least some potential resistance, not to mention that odds are he's nutty as a loon.

His mother is a psychiatric nurse. I'd bet that she knew.I'd also bet he's already diagnosed and was off his meds, but when we saw him in court he was back on them, and how.

Fark It:domino324: The standard argument against gun control is that it would only hinder law-abiding citizens. The criminals would still get them illegally, because they're criminals.

My question is, why are gun-related crimes like 100 to 1000 times more common in the US than they are in every country where guns are illegal?

Funny thing is, I don't want a total gun ban, just much tighter restrictions so that nuts like this guy can't get one.

Furthermore, the nature of guns available needs to be restricted. We don't need assault rifles readily for sale in this country. And again, for that "criminals would still have illegal guns" argument, I'm pretty sure the simple laws of supply and demand would drive the cost of those illegal guns through the roof. That means the number of criminals in possession of them would go down significantly. Again, look at the civilized countries with ith gun control and you have multiple case studies showing this to be true.

http://www.usa.gov/Contact.shtml

Get crackin'

Amendments don't write or pass themselves.

Right, because according to the wired article pointing to one of several internet arms bazaars for illegal weapons indicating the price of full auto chinese and russian weapons for sub500 per gun, will disappear when those legal semi autos go away, right?

fonebone77:Im not advocating for more gun control by any means. This guy could just as easily have brought the home made bombs he made and tossed em into the crowd causing even more damage. Im saying I dont believe less gun control would have made any positive difference in this situation.

Pretty much my take on it.

It's interesting we don't see more... inventive mass murders. Firebombs, poisons... I mean you have people mixing up H2S to kill themselves at home in the bathroom, after all. Granted there have been some car rundowns in recent years. And of course that little sarin thing...

thetubameister:I did call them. They wouldn't take a report; they wanted me to drive to file it. In the meantime, all I could think about was this nutsack finding out where I lived. But they ran his plates and determined that the guy had a carry license. F-that; psycho can go home and murder his family instead and maybe he won't breed.

uttertosh:toraque: Screw that. I'd have shiat on someone else' panties. Because you know the gunman will stop, think to himself, 'what the fark is that sick pervert doing to that girl?' and then I'd escape in the confusion.

Now that¨s super funny.... and quite smrt. :-D

I'm a firm believer in not letting tragedy stop you from doing what you'd be doing normally anyway.

Well, this has gone pretty much the same way as usual. A handful saying some sort of restrictions would be good, a groundswell of ITG whargarbl in response, and an excess of testosterone throughout.

So we come back to this; despite several recent high-profile shootings resulting in a grand total of zero new restrictions on gun ownership, gun sales still spike severely in the wake of tragedies like this. It's the same cycle, over and over, with some people saying restrictions would be good and others wholly convinced that those restrictions are already legislated and going into force in a month, necessitating an orgy of gun sales. The echo chambers of the right do very well in encouraging gun purchases in the immediate aftermath of these shootings. From what I can tell, the echo chambers of the left get bogged down discussing how to do anything about it. In a couple of weeks, shooting magazines will have a complete rundown on how to avoid high cap magazine jams, the NRA will send out a release telling their members about Obama's next anti-gun threat (based on statements from 1999), and those advocating gun control will likely be off fighting cuts to education.

That is, until the next shooting like this. We all know there will be a next time, and all the same stories, ITGs and firearms AWs will be out again flogging their ideals of a gun in every pocket, a marksman in every theatre, advocating for more civilians shooting more criminals, regardless of circumstances or the impacts of an ever-growing group of firearms owners, most of whom can't be trusted to operate a blender safely.